No Scientific Proof Of God Possible!?!?

NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD POSSIBLE!?!?

To begin with the God of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., is rarely if
ever associated with "intelligence." There is one big problem with
intelligence, rarely does intelligence and wisdom connect. Often as not
sanity is also missing from intelligence, especially higher intelligence. So
brains are out the window when it comes to God, though not mind...as in the
Mind of God. An amoeba can know the Mind of God better than any genius rated
human or alien life form anywhere. Comparability is out the window when it
comes to God. Measurement is out the window when it comes to God. Analysis
is out the window when it comes to God -- though not deduction.

The lower -- the more primitive -- the life form on the scale of life
forms, the higher the probability it will know God and the Mind of God. Even
the most primitive, most ancient, humans long, long, long before recorded
history began, realized that the simplest simpleton among them, usually the
youngest child of all among them, if not the as yet to be born, was probably
the closest of them all to the Divinity. We could see that in their like in
the farthest most primitive backwaters of this world even well into the 20th
Century.

With good reason to do so, with the best of perceptive wisdom in play to
do so, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., have (or at least had) placed the
"Creator" ("God") outside His physical "Creation," meaning outside and above
(in a way) the Universe and everything, everything whatsoever "physical" in
it, including its life, including us....as the only probable 'Other' to it.
Scientists, physicists, especially of all people should realize what the
word "other" means. Not only what it means, but particularly in this case,
the import of a 'constancy' with regard to it and the physical Universe.
That import being transformation of 'other' to the entity of the 'infinity'
of the Universe. In mathematics (thus mathematical physics), [I would
suppose], the symbolic of the import, thus the symbolism of the import,
would be the "simple" singular mathematical symbol (in existence since 1655
C.E.) representing "infinity."

Only from the "import" can the probability at all of the existence of the
"Other to..." be deduced. At least in my estimation of the situation.

GLB

G. L. Bradford wrote:

NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD POSSIBLE!?!?


Is that a question?

If it is: I think the answer to that one would depend strongly on your
definition of god/God/GOD.

eg: If you claim your god is allmighty, somebody could point out to you
'allmighty' is a logical inconsistency.
(Think of the old question: "Can God create a stone so heavy even God cannot
lift it?" Any 5-year old can see that both 'yes' and 'no' are wrong, but to
my surprise many grownups cannot.)

If you claim God is Love, why invent a new word for love?
If you claim God is as described in the bible, explain to somebody in the
right state of mind why we should believe that book to the letter?

etc.etc.

Just a few examples.

What is your definition of god?
Please make clear what you are talking about.
That is the only way you can elevate your writings from plain noise to
possibly-of-the-slightest-interest.

So would you care to give us all a clear definition of God?

Or even better, do that in talk.origins, because this is sci.physics, and
believe it or not: physicists tend to have a little more mature worldview
than your regular religious bang-bible-on-head zealot next door.

You might also wonder why people who read sci.physics.relativity and
sci.space.policy care about your contribution.

Or are you maybe trying to spam all newsgroups you can get your hands on?
If so: please wonder, to what end?
Do you expect someone to change their mind, and then a soul is won?



For now I assume you mean by God, the regular bible-thingy.


To begin with the God of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., is rarely
if
ever associated with "intelligence." There is one big problem with
intelligence, rarely does intelligence and wisdom connect.

Hmm, another word I would love to hear more about. Wisdom.

Just for my own understanding, please answer a few questions about wisdom,
so I can follow you better:
- Is it possible to be wise without being intelligent?
- How do you recognize wisdom?
- Is it wise to use force too if you are attacked?
- Is it wise to spam newsgroups?
- Is it wise to believe what is written in 2000 year old books, editted by
unknown monks?
If so, does that go for all books? How do you judge?
- Is it wise to ignore my response to your posting?


Often as not
sanity is also missing from intelligence, especially higher intelligence.

Wow.
Do you say: "The higher the intelligence, the less wisdom."?

That triggers me, but well, I still don't know what you mean by wisdom, so
this will have to wait.


So brains are out the window when it comes to God, though not mind...as in
the Mind of God. An amoeba can know the Mind of God better than any genius
rated human or alien life form anywhere.

???
Question: Since an amoeba can know the mind of God better than a genius, can
I also conclude that a virus knows it better than an amoeba?
And a molecule? Does a molecule know the mind of god better than an virus?
What about a single atom? Top-of-the-world when it comes to Godwisdom?

That claim kinda baffles me.

Comparability is out the window
when it comes to God. Measurement is out the window when it comes to God.
Analysis is out the window when it comes to God -- though not deduction.

Shame, so you won't answer my amoeba/virus/molecule question?
Because we cannot compare for some reason. Shame. :-(

By the way: Why can we not compare? Is the mind of god too great to be
compared?



The lower -- the more primitive -- the life form on the scale of life
forms, the higher the probability it will know God and the Mind of God.
Even the most primitive, most ancient, humans long, long, long before
recorded history began, realized that the simplest simpleton among them,
usually the youngest child of all among them, if not the as yet to be
born, was probably the closest of them all to the Divinity. We could see
that in their like in the farthest most primitive backwaters of this world
even well into the 20th Century.

If you say so...

To be honest: Your argument start sounding more and more like: "The less you
know, the closer you are to god.".
Which makes sense, given my personal experiences with religious people.


With good reason to do so, with the best of perceptive wisdom in play to
do so, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., have (or at least had) placed
the "Creator" ("God") outside His physical "Creation," meaning outside and
above (in a way) the Universe and everything, everything whatsoever
"physical" in it, including its life, including us....as the only probable
'Other' to it.

Hmm, that is interesting.
Let's talk about 'outside' for a while.

When you say 'outside' do you mean no interaction between the Godworld and
our own universum exists?
Are the Godworld and our own universe seperate?
Outside each other?
Like Venndiagrams without intersection/overlap?
Completely seperate?

If Yes:
That would explain a few things, like why we never see god, and why he never
answers when we pray (at least not me, last time I seriously tried, age 4).
If God lives in His Grand Universe, complete seperated from our universe,
why should we care then?
We are completely out of touch with that Godworld if that is the case.
For Gods sake, we cannot even know of the existence of that Goduniverse, let
alone the God(s) living in there.

If No: In that case that Godworld is not outside our universum, and thus
subject to our inquiries, and measurements.


Could you explain that?
Is God or is God not having interaction with our universe?
I am confused.


Scientists, physicists, especially of all people should
realize what the word "other" means. Not only what it means, but
particularly in this case, the import of a 'constancy' with regard to it
and the physical Universe. That import being transformation of 'other' to
the entity of the 'infinity' of the Universe. In mathematics (thus
mathematical physics), [I would suppose], the symbolic of the import, thus
the symbolism of the import, would be the "simple" singular mathematical
symbol (in existence since 1655 C.E.) representing "infinity."


I kinda lost you here.
Could you rephrase in a less amoebic way?


Only from the "import" can the probability at all of the existence of
the
"Other to..." be deduced. At least in my estimation of the situation.

I must admit I am glad to hear you end your writing in a way that leaves
options open. You say: "At least in my estimation of the situation.", which
seem to indicate you are not 100% convinced you are right.
A admirable feature, sometimes missing in religious folk.



GLB

Regards,
Erwin Moller

G. L. Bradford wrote:
NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD POSSIBLE!?!?

Correct. No scientific proof of God is possible.

A God whose existence could be proven or disproven by human science
would not, by definition, be a supernatural God at all, but merely a
powerful extraterrestrial like Star Trek's Q.


Igor wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:
NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD POSSIBLE!?!?

Correct. No scientific proof of God is possible.

In article . com, "Matt" writes:
A God whose existence could be proven or disproven by human science
would not, by definition, be a supernatural God at all, but merely a
powerful extraterrestrial like Star Trek's Q.

Yes, exactly. Good thinking.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Matt wrote:

A God whose existence could be proven or disproven by human science
would not, by definition, be a supernatural God at all, but merely a
powerful extraterrestrial like Star Trek's Q.

A sufficiently powerful extraterrestial would be equivalent to a God.
I think that may have been the writer's point. The Hebrews' God of the
Old Testament was, in fact, simply a powerful *******. All this
ineffability stuff came later, when theologians tried (ultimately and
inevitably, unsucessfully) to reconcile God's absolute goodness and
absolute power with observation.

The existence of the "supernatural" is anyway as much a question for
semantics as for science -- if there is something outside or above
nature, then, we could always say that we merely had failed to know
everything which was in nature. It's like knowing the rational and
discovering the irrational numbers. The new elements are "irrational"
(outside the class we knew before), and simultaneously "numbers"
(inside the class we previously knew, but only in part).

"Matt" wrote in message
ups.com...
A God whose existence could be proven or disproven by human science
would not, by definition, be a supernatural God at all, but merely a
powerful extraterrestrial like Star Trek's Q.

(smile) (nod)

GLB

G. L. Bradford wrote:
NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD POSSIBLE!?!?

Exactly right, not possible.

--
Linux is just a fancy name for Windows blocker.

Claude Hopper

Matt wrote:
A God whose existence could be proven or disproven by human science
would not, by definition, be a supernatural God at all, but merely a
powerful extraterrestrial like Star Trek's Q.
Yes, so?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
--
For email replies, please substitute the obvious.

"Erwin Moller"
since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spam yourself.com wrote in
message ...
G. L. Bradford wrote:

NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD POSSIBLE!?!?


Is that a question?

If it is: I think the answer to that one would depend strongly on your
definition of god/God/GOD.


Exactly. Why not let science and observation give us a
proper definition. Else all that follows is nonsense.

The example used of an ET being god-like to us gives
us a clue. A higher level of intelligence, such as humans
above animals, or ET above us, reflect evolutionary
emergence. Which follows a power law distribution
with many small increments, combined with the rare
large evolutionary step. As in an earthquake. Such as
intelligence emerging from animal life.

So God would be that which stands clearly on a higher
emergent evolutionary step then that which came before.
This observation based definition of god clearly contradicts
the classical notions, as god would come at the
end of the evolutionary ladder, not at the beginning.

So what evolutionary step would follow human intelligence?

Wisdom is a collective property, a property of the whole
not of the parts. An emergent system property.

The wisdom that flows from the collective intelligence
of humanity would define the next higher level.
And God. We can see how the internet is combining
countless minds with massive parrallel connectivity.
Looking for the wisdom that flows from this evolutionary
process would be looking for God.



eg: If you claim your god is allmighty, somebody could point out to you
'allmighty' is a logical inconsistency.
(Think of the old question: "Can God create a stone so heavy even God
cannot
lift it?" Any 5-year old can see that both 'yes' and 'no' are wrong, but
to
my surprise many grownups cannot.)


God would now be the wisdom of creation. The wisdom needed
to create a new 'universe'. I think it's appropriate to say that
animans and intelligence occupy different 'universes'.
As, by definition, emergent properties cannot be understood
by that from which they emerged. So the question would
be now, can nature produce that which it cannot control?

Since evolution produces emergent creations that are greater
than what came before, such as intelligence from animals
the answer is clearly yes.



If you claim God is Love, why invent a new word for love?


God is wisdom. The process that created God is nature
or evolution. We must be clear to separate the system
from its emergent property. Love is the union of opposite
extremes. Whether male and female, or genetics and
mutation. When the opposite extremes are at a persistant
phase transition between the two, the system self
organizes and emergent properties appear.

Such as when genetics and mutation are fully interacting
and in balance the emergent property of selection appears.
Or when condensation and evaporation are critically
interacting we get a cloud, a more organized system.

And the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

The source of creation for us and God are one in the
same.....love. Or nature.



..

Just for my own understanding, please answer a few questions about wisdom,
so I can follow you better:
- Is it possible to be wise without being intelligent?


Wisdom only flows from the collective intelligence of many
minds. It is not necessary that each mind is highly intelligent.
In fact, in can be showed that a full range of diversity
of levels of intelligence would produce the greatest
wisdom in the whole.

Just as in evolution, diversity and selection produce
the most efficient solutions and adaptations.
A living system that is uniform is generally doomed.

So the answer is yes.


- How do you recognize wisdom?


We would look for a system that best mimics a
naturally evolving one, as the emergent wisdom
is proportional, in a way, to the system's level
of evolutionary ability. A concensus forming from
a naturally evolving system.



Question: Since an amoeba can know the mind of God better than a genius,
can
I also conclude that a virus knows it better than an amoeba?
And a molecule? Does a molecule know the mind of god better than an virus?
What about a single atom? Top-of-the-world when it comes to Godwisdom?


Life is self similar across scale. The fractal instability inherent
in all self organized systems means the properties of nature
or that which creates God, is found in everything to some
extent or another. But clearly these creative properties
are best expressed in higher levels of organization.
So we, or intelligence, are closest to understanding God.



With good reason to do so, with the best of perceptive wisdom in play
to
do so, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., have (or at least had) placed
the "Creator" ("God") outside His physical "Creation," meaning outside
and
above (in a way) the Universe and everything, everything whatsoever
"physical" in it, including its life, including us....as the only
probable
'Other' to it.


A system and its emergent properties exist in two different
''universes'. In the sense that the system cannot fathom
the emergent system property.

Such as a market system producing market forces.
They both exist, and in the same place and time.
Yet one is tangible and can be 'weighed' etc.
While the emergent property is ethereal in
nature. We know such market forces exist
yet try to stick it with a fork, or weigh them etc.
You can't. As it's a system property that vanishes
the second the system is stopped long enough
to measure.

An animal cannot fathom intelligence. A single
human cannot become wise. We cannot 'know'
emergent properties that flow from us. They
exist outside our ability to experience.



Could you explain that?
Is God or is God not having interaction with our universe?
I am confused.



Just as with market systems and market forces. It's no
contradiction to say they both coexist in space and
time, they both effect each other. Yet both cannot
be known at once.



Jonathan

s




GLB

Regards,
Erwin Moller